ORDER 11.11.2010 — The Secretary of Sarasara Service Cooperative Society in the district of Boudh, the Branch Manager, Boudh Cooperative Central Bank, Purunakataka Branch and the Secretary, Boudh Cooperative Central Bank are the appellants in this appeal. They have assailed the judgment and order of the District Forum, Boudh dated 03.03.2004 passed in C.D. Case No.131 of 2002. The aforementioned C.D. Case was preferred by the complainant-respondent Satchida Nanda Pradhan alleging deficiency in service on the appellants, who were the opposite parties before the said District Forum. The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant became a Kishan Credit Card holder under the Service Cooperative Society, Sarasara by making payment of Rs.505/- and applied for getting a loan. Loan amounting to Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned in his favour by opposite party No.1-appellant No.1 in the year 2002, out of which he had received Rs.4,942/- in shape of fertilizer on 10.08.2002. Opposite party No.1 assured him to provide the rest of the amount in cash either on 10.08.2002 or on the next day to be available from opposite party No.2-appellant No.2. In spite of several approaches made by the complainant-respondent, neither opposite party No.1 nor opposite party No.2 released the rest of the loan amount sanctioned and finally they refused to release the same for which the complainant was aggrieved and alleging deficiency in service and making prayer for direction for release of the rest of the amount of Rs.25,053/- and for payment of compensation and cost, he filed the consumer complaint. The opposite parties appellants appeared before the District Forum on being noticed and admitted the sanctioned of loan of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the respondent and part payment of Rs.4,942/- in shape of fertilizer. It is their specific case that after taking the fertilizer, the complainant never turned up to receive the rest of the sanctioned amount for which the same could not be disbursed. They have put the entire blame on the complainant. It has been submitted by them that they are in no way deficient in providing service to the complainant and they have prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. They have put the entire blame on the complainant. It has been submitted by them that they are in no way deficient in providing service to the complainant and they have prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. The learned District Forum, after hearing the parties came to opine that when the complainant had applied for loan, which had been sanctioned, and out of that he had received Rs.4,942/- in shape of fertilizer, he would not have failed to go to receive the balance amount, which was badly required by him for agricultural purposes, i.e. for purchase of seeds, pesticides, etc. Basing on such surmise, the learned Forum held the opposite parties-appellants deficient in service and directed them, specifically opposite party-appellant No.3, to release the balance amount of loan of Rs.25,058/- in favour of the complainant and pay him compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within 40 days from the date of the order, failing which the amounts would carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. We have heard Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra for the appellants and Mr. M.K. Behera on behalf of Mr. D.R. Mohanty appearing for the respondent. It was strongly asserted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since after receiving the fertilizer the complainant-respondent never turned up to receive the rest of the sanctioned amount, the same could not be disbursed. In such a case, the appellants-opposite parties cannot be labelled with deficiency in providing service to the complainant-respondent. Apart from that, it was argued that the appellants are not duty bound to disburse the sanctioned amount as it is their discretion whether to disburse the same or not and the complainant-respondent cannot claim such disbursement merely because the loan was sanctioned. There are various criteria to be examined before disbursement of the sanctioned amount. He also appointed out that the learned District Forum has simply on surmise that since the complainant required the money for payment of labour charge, purchase of pesticide, seeds, etc., he must have approached the opposite parties-appellants, who have not disbursed the said amount, has passed the impugned order, which is not at all sustainable. On surmise and assumption, the appellants-opposite parties cannot be held liable. In our view, they should not have been saddled with the direction for disbursement, which is solely their discretion, far less compensation and cost. On surmise and assumption, the appellants-opposite parties cannot be held liable. In our view, they should not have been saddled with the direction for disbursement, which is solely their discretion, far less compensation and cost. In view of the above we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2004 passed by the District Forum, Boudh in C.D. Case No.131 of 2002 and direct dismissal of the said consumer complaint. Appeal allowed.